To preempt, according to Dictionary online, is as follows;
“taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive; deterrent: a preemptive tactic against a ruthless business rival.”.
As in the definition, preemption can be preventative and this may take the form of a redundant system that relies on multiple safe-guards to protect against a single threat or undesired effect. Brushing your teeth, wearing a seat-belt and having a healthy diet could all be ways of preemptively minimizing your risk of poor health. Additionally, we might take a preemptive action in order to deter any threat or negative effect against us. This was one of the cases made for the (second) Iraq war, “The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he (Saddam) can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” (Condoleeza Rice).
Preemption serves the same kinds of purposes in philosophical or ideological argument. While one does run the risk of forming “Straw-man” arguments by assuming to know a particular line of attack by their opponent, which may or may not be true, a preemptive counter-argument is made to nullify a non-stated threat to one’s premise or ideology. This has the additional effect of characterizing one’s opponent as something they may not be, without regard to the veracity of such a characterization, and putting them on the defensive, keeping them ‘busy’ or making them appear weak when such tactics are called ‘unfair’ or any ‘foul’ is called.
It should be noted that the justification for preemptive argument, campaigning or warfare will be truly justified by the veracity of the unsupported or unverified claims which are made for such justification. That is, in order to justify that we should preemptively attack Iraq because they have a WMD program that threatens our nation on a mass-scale, we must prove that they do indeed have such a program and further, that they intend to use said program against us. Merely having such a program is not enough when we have inferred both criteria and not just the one. Again, the assumption of a given criteria involved in making a preemptive strike remains an unfounded assumption until verifiable proof is given.
And what of the Psychology of Preemption? To preemptively label someone who makes a given claim as ‘ignorant’ or ‘evil’ both ignores the claim at issue and also completely dismisses them without ever hearing or responding to the argument or claim that was originally made. Furthermore, it is an Ad Hominum attack that obfuscates the principle arguments involved. It is deceptive and dishonest as a diversionary tool because while pretending to address a given issue, it does no such thing and instead attacks and claims victory on completely unrelated terms.
Perhaps you begin to see where I’m going with this.
Inoculation is a gift from modern science whereby we can prepare a person’s immune system for some viral or bacterial threat (please forgive, if I don’t have this exactly correct – “Ich verstehe nür der Hauptbahnhof”). Inoculation is a preemptive attack, purposefully made against our own bodies, in order to give our immune system some idea how to fight the infection or illness and then to build those defenses to keep us safe in the future. With ideas and beliefs, we can also witness instances where minds are inoculated against thoughts or ideas that run counter to the given belief system or philosophy. Thoughts and ideas that such a person is bound to run into and against which they will need to have some defense by which to resist.
It is my goal to show that Christianity inoculates it’s followers in just such a way in order to create a thinking-pattern that is immune to unauthorized ideas and thoughts. I share with Christians a belief that the warfare we wage is not physical in nature but I disagree that it is spiritual; it is ideological and it is mental warfare at it’s heart.
Yes, I am an Atheist. And what, I ask, does the Bible say of those who don’t believe in God? That’s easy, right? The verse jumps to the fore and reads confidently, “The Fool hath said in his heart (there is) no God.” (Psalm 14:1). Already, we can see the inoculation at work, that preemptive argument of labeling someone who dares make the statement or dares ask a question: You are a fool! Again, an ad Hominum attack which conveniently ignores the question that is begging to be answered; “Is there a God.. or isn’t there?”. Even if you are such a literalist that holds to what may be a nearer translation, “The Fool hath said in his heart, ‘no God!'”, the question behind the preemptive passage still stands: “Does God exist, at all?”. While it may ‘seem’ self-evident that God exists, if God does NOT indeed, exists, then the failed assumption has not justified the calling of anyone, a Fool. But notice too the other features of this verse and this tactic; in addition to 1) assuming God’s existence without any evidence whatsoever and ignoring the question of basis, it also 2) dictates a combative and punitive attitude towards the unbeliever and furthermore, 3) it employs trickery and obfuscation. One other insight from my wife, and this ties in with the dismissive nature of this verse, is that it is Passive-Aggressive. If someone is contemplating the idea that there may not be a god, this verse sais, ‘I am not calling you a fool (passive), but if you make such a statement, then yes, you are a fool (aggressive)!’. It completely dismisses any and all arguments, every reason why one might come to such a conclusion and merely makes a flat statement without any kind of justification. Indeed, it again assumes no justification is necessary. Surely a loving God would ‘turn the other cheek’ and simply answer the question with, “Yes! I exist” or some other positive and optimal response fitting an omnibenevolent being. Instead, we’re met with a preemptive ad hominum attack that can’t seem to run from the question of basis fast enough. It is sleight-of-hand and beneath any all-wise, all-knowing and, I dare say, all-loving God. This verse does not want you to question God’s existence and punishes anyone for having any doubt. It is an appeal to ignorance under the red-faced indignation of personal attacks. But the question remains, is there a God? I say no, there is no God ~ but you don’t want to listen to a fool do you?
Now, while we’re on the topic of ‘Fools’, this leads to still more inoculations against the criticisms others level against Christians and Christianity.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
Nowhere here is the underlying truth of any claim addressed. Nowhere. This is a long list of proclamation without basis or justification of any sort, and yet, now the ‘Fool’ imagery is praised and elevated whereas in Psalms, it was vilified. Is it or is it not a bad thing to be a fool? If you are called a fool for believing in God, don’t worry, you are actually partaking of the wisdom of God. However, if you are a fool employing the wisdom of the world, God has beat you, frustrated you, destroyed you and made you truly foolish. Oh! And because you employ such wisdom you are perishing even now. (Makes perfect sense) But I digress. There is no answer to the question, “Why did the wisdom of the World not reveal God?”. It just blithely assumes that either there are no reasons to doubt God’s wisdom and, necessarily, God’s existence, or that the wisdom of the world was insufficient to the task. Unfortunately, it does not say. And either way, it dismisses any and all world-wisdom testimony. It just isn’t concerned with any arguments that contend with or challenge these ideas. For that matter, for the purposes of this blog, neither am I. I only wonder why God is so adamant that there be no questions? No discussion or bantering of ideas? It again fails to impress me that such a loving and kind god could fail so miserably at patient explanation.
And what do we see about this as regards Christians? Rolling eyes and heavy sighs, right? The Inoculated are weary of stupid arguments that make no sense and really tired of all the high-sounding ideas and philosophies that any non-believer can come up with – that is all just the ‘wisdom of the world’ which the Christian ‘knows’ God has already destroyed, mocked and made foolish. No need to listen, nothing to see here, move along. Even the really good arguments, the ones that give a person pause and, for just a moment causes them to think about a given premise.. yes, even those arguments can be shelved with the preemptive notion that ‘..God’s foolishness is greater than man’s wisdom.”. ‘This argument sounds pretty darned convincing but if this is the best argument they’ve got, God’s wisdom is a million times better!’.
There’s a trap there and it appeals to pride. No one wants to be thought of as foolish, or stupid, but when you give someone a cause for why they might be called just that, they might revel in it and even seek it out.
All of this seems inconsistent with a loving god or a patient one. If a given proposition is true, why is there the need to quell doubts, prohibit or discourage questioning and why make a mockery of those who do not accept whole-sale that which is being contested, discussed or argued? And if it is conceded that there is a loving God, why on earth would he resort to this kind of bullying and arm-twisting. It is divisive and accusatory which, to me speaks much more loudly of a wicked being who is trying to trick me than in a good one who has my best interest at heart.
Please feel free to comment and I would especially welcome any additional preemptive inoculations you have noticed in Christianity, Atheism and the Bible. Your thoughts and your disagreements, your encouragements and even your corrections are welcome; all I ask is that you try to stay on track within the bounds of this discussion.
Dropping all Pretense 